April 14 at 7:33am

Make It Tasty: Part 3 of 3

Today’s guest post from producer Cotty Chubb concludes his post on recognizing audiences.

“Joltin’ Joe has left and gone away.”

But here’s what we do have to do. We have to know who needs what we make. The days of a generalized appetite are likely past. The great magazines of my childhood are gone: The Saturday Evening Post, Life, Look.

In their place a multiplicity of niches… Bass-fishing, trout-fishing, salt-water-flat fishing, each with its own devotees, each with its own audience and its own media that satisfies with fact and fantasy.

When Beverly Hills was awash with money in 2006 I was talking to a successful independent producer friend who’d amassed a stash of cash, hedge fund money looking for a non-correlated asset paired with a compliant bank selling leverage. [No disrespect to my friend, none; I couldn't have raised that money.] About a picture he was intending I asked, “Who’s the audience?” With the calm that comes from a full wallet, he said “If it’s a good movie, people will come to it.” Except that he’s since entirely lost his equity, tapped out. And he made some good movies.

Really, it’s only sensible. If your job is gratifying the unspoken needs of a group of people, shouldn’t you have some idea who those people are?

Sure, there are national wounds. Dad comes in, sits on the bed. “Stevie, your mother and I love you very much. But we’re going to destroy your world because, frankly, our needs are more important than yours.” That’s a national wound and multi-generational. Lots of people need to see a world come back together when it looks like it’s impossible.

But if you’re not making pictures that are going to have tens of millions of dollars available to reach across the nation and the generations, and you’re not spending scores of millions on spectacle, you better be looking to give intense gratification to a smaller and identifiable group.

Who are you making the picture for? How can you find them? Through what channels can you reach them? What bonds them together? How can they discover you?

Don’t ask these questions before the first draft is written. Let that unconscious discovery process happen unimpeded by externalities. But you better have some good answers before you start raising money.

Lessons from Momofuku

David Chang, the chef-owner of Momofuku Ko and a couple of other astonishing restaurants was talking last week to Evan Kleiman on her KCRW radio show, Good Food.

It’s a wonderful interview with many lessons for film-makers. David Chang was highly trained but had his own vision. He opened a noodle bar in the East Village where the focus was on the food made cheaply and bravely. The success that came from gratifying customers allowed him to open two more restaurants, each specific to his ambition to create something he thought of as honest.

Evan was trying to get David to define his style: so it’s French technique and an Asian palate?, but he demurred. It’s American food, he said. It’s always French technique but it’s not about authenticity. Craft matters, but not obedience to authority. And then he said these wise words:

“Screw authenticity. Let’s make something tasty. Let’s try to make something when if you eat it, you slap yourself on the forehead and say ‘Wow, that’s really great.’ And when you leave, that’s what you’re talking about.”

Notice he’s talking simultaneously about himself and the people who eat his food. He’s the cook and he’s the eater. He’s the director and he’s the audience.

As a recipe for success in our beleaguered business, as we try to forge a new way forward, that’s as good as it gets:

Make Something Tasty.

Make it for us who sit in the dark and dream.

Part 1.
Part 2.

Cotty Chubb is a producer and manager working in LA. Movies he’s proud of range fromEve’s Bayou to The Crow toPootie Tang to the upcoming Unthinkable with Samuel Jackson and Michael Sheen.

  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • Ben Powell
    I really enjoyed the article. It reminded me of Seth Godin or 37 Signals or some of the other smart folks in other creative ventures.

    It's great to see the same level of thought and writing brought to film. I also love the overall concept of Ted Hope's site.

    It's a shame though that the comments are filled with people who want to attack the author and prove that they are smarter than him. There's really no point to that. Especially attacking his film, that's pretty low.

    Sometimes I wish people could see the big picture. No one has the answers. But through building this site we can all start to figure it out. It can benefit all of us. Or we can just bicker and act like school girls.
  • Vincent Chigurh
    Cotty,

    You have some valid points about the demise of meaningful cinema in particular and in independent film especially.

    However, you're utterly and completely out to lunch when it comes to "how to fix it". See, it's not about catering to audience. GASP! Yes I said it. That's what Michael Bay movies are for. Great massive entertainment.

    People that come to independent movies want to be provoked, inspired, and given something completely new and different. Unfortunately most independent movies are same old same, and THAT's why the audience has left.

    Still, you are onto something...any writer/director that TRIES to create uniqueness or greatness is doing so based on EGO and will completely miss the mark. Great art is created not out of a desire to feed the audience but out of a desire to create. Actually the artist has no choice. He/She must create. The best among us do it in the service of the story without injecting a massive ego into the mix.

    The second thing that you are completely out to lunch on: there are GREAT stories out there, but the so called producers and the experts that show us the new models of distribution are too scared to take em on. Most of you guys are busy trying to show how the new distribution will be done instead of actually doing it. Why? I guess everone's gonna sit back and some moron of a director will come up with how to do it, and then everyone will jump on that bandwagon.

    Cotty, here is the advice you should have given:

    "Dear independent filmmakers, you are a filmmaker because you are compelled to be an artist. So go forth, be bold, and give birth to your art. Don't create the same cliched films that everyone tells you to. They don't know any better. Oh btw, films that have your heart and soul poured into them, films that are born out of a selfless act of creation, will co-incidentally also do really well with an audience"

    Cotty, thanks for starting the conversation.

    -Vincent
  • doghouse
    Cotty Chubb writes

    "Or is there an underlying moral, or a value, or an experience that’s irreplaceable, joyous, deeply movingly human, comic enough to make me forget my troubles (creating that level of humor, that’s challenging), what? Challenge yourself."

    For anyone who actually writes and directs, this language -- "moving, funny, joyous, deeply movingly human, underlying moral value," etc. -- is meaningless or, at best, useless. It's the language of an ad agency, not a program to work by, out of your head, in a room, alone.

    And for the life me, I can't think of a single work of art or entertainment, in or out of the movies, which satisfies all these requirements. If we reduce it to 3 out of 4, maybe "A Midsummer's Night's Dream" (the play, not the movie)? Or one or two Preston Sturges films from the 30s? Or a few of the Michael Powell/Emeric Pressburger projects from the 40s and 50s? Maybe some Jean Renoir? Or Jean Vigo? Or Kurosawa? But I doubt these scripts would raise much capital today. And certainly these films would not draw mass audiences in 2010.

    For this discussion to mean anything, you really need to move beyond generalities: what contemporary movies are you talking about? Any answer will invite ridicule from those who don't share your enthusiasm. But there's probably no alternative now, otherwise this is just talk.

    As for real names -- you do have a point, wanker or not. But you wouldn't know mine anyway, and for this thread at least, it started anonymously, and it will end anonymously.
  • Cotty Chubb
    Carson, what about anonymously expressed contempt is honorable? William Blake said in The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, "Always be ready to speak your mind, and a base man will avoid you." Think about it. C.
  • Cotty Chubb
    Oh, what hooey, doghouse. Don't you think I take a risk by criticizing studio movies when I might have clients or projects I want to sell to studios? Don't be a wanker complaining about unequal power relations. Maybe there are some independent producers with money (damn few in my world!) and maybe some of them are vindictive types (fewer yet), but state your case and name your name.

    And take a breath and think about what about your "challenging project" is so valuable to an audience that they'll pay for it. Is it a privilege merely to be challenged? (In which case, no thanks.) Or is there an underlying moral, or a value, or an experience that's irreplaceable, joyous, deeply movingly human, comic enough to make me forget my troubles (creating that level of humor, that's challenging), what? Challenge yourself.
  • doghouse
    Chris Dorr raises a fair point: why are the filmmakers and would-be filmmakers spinelessly posting here anonymously, while the producers don't hesitate to use their real names?

    Since the answer (or one answer) goes to the heart of the dispute, it's worth venturing. If producers blame filmmakers for myopia and narcissism, filmmakers just as often revile producers for unproven claims that they understand what makes for dramatic quality and what the audience wants, and the tendency of many producers to work with filmmakers with whom they have too much in common, socially and temperamentally -- as opposed to the writer-directors who come in with more difficult more material and less pleasing manners. The results, of course, are predictable: relatively pleasant development periods and shoots, but mediocre and predictable movies.

    And of course the power relations are unequal: independent filmmakers in the U.S. need producers, because there's no public money. For that matter, independent producers are far better known in the U.S. than most indie filmmakers. There are even famous indie "producers" who, as far as I can tell, don't actually produce anything, or haven't for years -- some have been known to post here. And yet they're famous, and much respected and deemed to be experts.

    In practice, any filmmaker here could probably post on his or her own name, and lose nothing, because a producer that easily offended won't take on a challenging project anyway. And the producer not willing to work with a filmmaker who secretly or not so secretly despises him or her is probably not worth courting.

    But caution remains, the same way employees criticizing the boss or the company won't post under their real names.
  • Cotty is right on. I've written posts to this effect before and was completely ignored. But Cotty is touching on something here that is the real heart of the problem with why indie filmmakers have so hard a time sustaining a living.

    It's quite true that no one in Hollywood knows anything about what will sell, as Goldman said. But that doesn't relieve filmmakers of the responsibility to make compelling films. Yet this basic premise, which I think takes priority above all else, is completely ignored at every DIY Days or Filmmaker Forum I've seen or been to. Everyone is completely caught up with finding the right strategy to market their film and they ignore this premise that the film must have an audience compelled to watch it. Any film that has any success has met this goal.

    Filmmakers don't want to hear about that because they want to make the films they want to make. It's not about marketing stats or knowing what will sell. It's simply about making something compelling to watch. When you show your film to friends or family are they riveted to the screen or are they just being polite. You should know the difference.

    My wife is not at all happy with my filmmaking forays. She has no problem telling me I suck. My films suck. My actors suck. But when I made my last film she actually said it was great and deserves to be seen. My daughter met Michael Moore at his premier last year and told him my film is really good. That blew me away. My kids never stand up for me like that, let alone in public to someone like Michael Moore.

    So I think that as filmmaker we get caught up with our babies and believe they are great works. But the reality is somewhere else. The reality is when other people go to bat for you and say yeah, he's good. That's a good film.

    That has nothing to do with knowing the market. It may even happen by accident. You may have to make a lot of films before you hit that note. But when you hit it, you'll know it because people will let you know. You have to have an audience compelled to watch your stuff. That's job one. Then we can talk about distribution strategies.
  • Carson McCullers
    "What is it that the people commenting in this thread that disagree with Cotty are afraid to leave their own names?"

    -Because they're smart and want rich douche bags to give them money in the future without a record of calling them a rich douche bag.
  • anonymous
    My posts are anonymous so that they will be judged for themselves. The questions I raise have whatever validity they do or don't have, regardless of whether I attach a name to them.
  • What is it that the people commenting in this thread that disagree with Cotty are afraid to leave their own names? Lack of courage perhaps? Please have the guts to stand up and say who you really are when you comment, it is what any artist would do, don't you think? Even without regard to the audience, even only with regard to themselves.
  • anonymous
    I think both Cotty and doghouse are expressing their frustration at the lack of any real answers.

    Most (if not all) filmmakers, from Orson Welles to Ed Wood, try to make the best movies they can. So, advising filmmakers to make better movies, tastier movies, movies that recognize their audience, is verbal masturbation.

    The fact is, if you focus purely on making a good movie, then an audience will come to the movie -- maybe. And if you focus on finding an audience, reaching it, bonding with it, involving it in the process, finding out what it thinks is “tasty”, catering to its desires, then that audience will come to your movie -- maybe.

    No one has any useful answers that I've heard yet. But every time someone trumpets a new spin on, “Hey, I’ve got a great idea! Let’s start making movies that people want to see!” it simply adds to the frustration and resembles something not so much like either art or commerce, but more akin to religious dogma.
  • Radar
    Wow...next!
  • doghouse
    Chris Dorr writes:

    "It is not about predictability, it is about audience engagement, about touching an audience’s emotions at a deep level. It is not a science, it is an artistic approach. It is caring more about the audience then about yourself. "

    For the last time -- I promise -- yours is a demonstrably incoherent approach to making movies. If you want to touch an audience's deep emotions (assuming you're not making propaganda) you have only your own emotions to work with, and the respect you owe the form you're working in. You're thinking about veracity, elegance, form, artifice, the success of the mechanism -- not the audience, about which you know little or nothing, and which won't solve your technical difficulties and your imaginative deficits. You write for audience only to the extent you *are* the audience.

    And if your goal is "audience engagement", the main measure of that involvement is box office. If a producer cannot predict audience behavior, what does really know about that audience? It sounds more like he's serving an imaginary audience, the one inside his head, just like the evil narcissists.
  • I think the food analogy is a perfect fit for film. The goal is to find audiences who are looking for the tasty film you've cooked up. Don't try to serve steak to a vegan.
  • sinosoul
    Let there be no mistake, Momofuk's true mantra is to make cheap shticky food, deemed edible by the least common denominator, at 500% profit. Not sure how that applies to film making, unless you're trying to truly rip off your audience?
  • doghouse, I still think you are missing the point. It is not about predictability, it is about audience engagement, about touching an audience's emotions at a deep level. It is not a science, it is an artistic approach. It is caring more about the audience then about yourself. It is not that complicated, really. And it is great that Cotty has expressed it in a way that can remind filmmakers that it is something that should be an intrinsic part of their process, (and it is for many that make films).
  • doghouse
    Chris Dorr,

    If filmmakers knew what audiences wanted, they'd be psychics and mediums, not filmmakers. And if Cotty Chubb knew, he'd be a billionaire several times over and could finance as many films as he wanted, and make billions more.

    The independent and art-house market is even more unpredictable -- where a dour Romanian film about an abortion ("Four Months, Three Weeks, Two Days") can easily outsell some uplifting star vehicle from Sundance in plain English.

    Amazing, that we're still having this debate, in an industry which, historically, and despite reams of market research, has made money on only a small percentage of its productions. I guess all the studio execs and financiers are narcissists.
  • doghouse, I think you miss Cotty's essential point. He is saying filmmakers should trust their audiences and have them top of mind when they are making their films. Just as a chef thinks about the people who are going to eat his/her food. Make something that causes people to say "this is great and I can't wait to tell all my friends about it!". Something that causes them to want to share the experience widely.

    The issue is not whether or not to "trust" filmmakers. The issue is whether or not filmmakers can really learn to "trust" their audience.
  • doghouse
    We don't want to beat this one to death, but let's say, for the sake of the argument, that you're right: the trouble with movies today is self-indulgent, navel-gazing writers and directors who care more about themselves than the audience.

    But these bad movies don't spring from some narcissist's forehead: somebody has to pay for them, and somebody has to produce them, among thousands of other available projects.

    So let's look at the performance of those producers, and how these bad movies came into being. Isn't it fair to say that with the exception of some filmmaker-producers -- from the Coen Brothers to Spielberg -- there is NO producer in America, outside the realm of spectacle and comic book movies, with a proven ability to *reliably* pick or mold projects which either 1) make a lot of money, or 2) gain great and justly earned esteem, whether in Hollywood, New York, Cannes or Timbucto?

    You don't trust the filmmakers. But why should filmmakers trust producers who routinely fail at both art and commerce?
blog comments powered by Disqus

This site could not have been built without the help and insight of Michael Morgenstern. My thanks go out to him.

Help save indie film and give this guy a job in web design or film!